Jesus' Resurrection: Fact or Figment?: A Debate Between William Lane Craig Gerd Ludemann

by Paul Copan (Editor), Ronald K. Tacelli (Editor)

Was the resurrection of Jesus a fact of history or a figment of imagination? Was it an event that entailed a raised and transformed body and an empty tomb? Or was it a subjective, visionary experience--a collective delusion? In the view of many, the truth of Christianity hangs on the answer to this question. Jesus' Fact or Figment? is a lively and provocative debate between Christian philosopher and apologist William Lane Craig and New Testament scholar and atheist Gerd Lüdemann. This published version of a debate originally set at Boston College is edited by Paul Copan and Ronald K. Tacelli, who invite the responses of four additional scholars. Robert Gundry, a New Testament scholar, and Stephen Davis, a philosopher, argue in support of a historical and actual resurrection. Michael Goulder and Roy Hoover, both New Testament scholars, offer their support for Gerd Lüdemann's view that the "resurrection" was based on the guilt-induced visionary experience of the disciples. The book concludes with a final response from Lüdemann and Craig.

Genres: Religion, Christianity, Theology, Christian, Philosophy

206 pages, Paperback

First published October 24, 2000

About the author

Paul Copan is a Christian theologian, analytic philosopher, apologist, and author. He is currently a professor at the Palm Beach Atlantic University and holds the endowed Pledger Family Chair of Philosophy and Ethics.

From 1980-1984, he attended Columbia International University and earned a B.A. degree in biblical studies. Copan attended Trinity International University, where he received his M.A. in philosophy of religion, as well as his M.Div. at Trinity International. Copan received the Prof. C.B. Bjuge Award for a thesis that “evidences creative scholarship in the field of Biblical and Systematic Theology.”

In May 2000, Copan received his Ph.D. in philosophy of religion from Marquette University in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. His dissertation topic was "The Moral Dimensions of Michael Martin’s Atheology: A Critical Assessment."

Reviews

[Steven H · Rating 5 out of 5]

AN EXCELLENT DEBATE, WITH FOLLOWING RESPONSES

Paul Copan (who also edited the book, 'Will the Real Jesus Please Stand Up?: A Debate between William Lane Craig and John Dominic Crossan') and Ronald Tacelli said in the Introduction to this 2000 book, "the question is ... surely important enough to debate. And on September 18, 1997... Boston College hosted ... William Lane Craig and Gerd Lüdemann, to make the best possible case for each side." (Pg. 8) This book then includes responses from four other persons (two from each "side").

They note, "At the time of the debate, Lüdemann considered himself to be a Christian theologian... Lüdemann now... has come to embrace an atheistic, human-centered spirituality." (Pg. 9; see pg. 161 for his own beliefs.) [Lüdemann is also author of 'Jesus After 2000 Years,' 'The Great Deception: And What Jesus Really Said and Did,' 'What Really Happened to Jesus,' 'The Resurrection Of Christ,' 'Virgin Birth?,' etc.]

Craig said, "hallucinations fail to explain why the disciples came to believe in Jesus' RESURRECTION from the dead. As projections from the mind, hallucinations can't contain anything that's not already in the mind. So if the disciples were to project hallucinations of Jesus, they would have projected him in Paradise, where the righteous dead went and awaited the resurrection at the end of the world... Thus, the hallucination theory has weak explanatory power..." (Pg. 50)

Lüdemann argues, "Dr. Craig is looking at the resurrection stories as a single piece of evidence. He is combining Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and even Paul. I would suggest a different procedure---that we start with the Pauline witness, which presupposes a visionary appearance... And that visionary experience was later replaced by the stories that you read. I have a simple explanation for why Luke is telling such a story... Luke is writing when there are conflicting theories and opinions of Christians... that the resurrection was not a bodily resurrection but a spiritual resurrection." (Pg. 54)

Robert Gundry argues, "if Jesus' enemies buried him, they must have known the location of his tomb. Only if his disciples had buried him and kept the location secret from his enemies could the latter have been unable to point out a tomb containing Jesus' corpse... What Lüdemann does instead is to suggest that the disciples did not start preaching Jesus' resurrection till so much later than his death... that 'you wouldn't see much left [of the body].' But you would see something, at least the skeleton... So Craig's question retains its force: Why did the enemies of Jesus not squelch the message of resurrection by exposing his remains?" (Pg. 114)

Roy Hoover points out, "[Paul] appears to regard his vision of the risen Jesus to be of the same character and significance as the visions of the others whom he names as witnesses to the resurrection. Second, he makes no reference to the empty tomb... It seems reasonable to infer from Paul's remarks in this passage that a vision of the risen Jesus constitutes the primary experiential datum of the resurrection, not a report of the empty tomb." (Pg. 129) Lüdemann also adds, "Paul did not use the tradition of the empty tomb, though he could have benefited from it in his argument with Corinthian Christians who were unable to think of the resurrection of Jesus in bodily terms." (Pg. 153)

This exchange is one of the best available between liberals/progressives and evangelicals; it will be of great value to folks on ALL sides of the theological spectrum.

[David Diaz · Rating 3 out of 5]

I really liked the style in which this book was presented. It contained not just the presentations of the two debate opponents, but it then added responses by four more scholars, who provided their critique of the original presentations. Then, at the end, the original presenters were allowed to provide closing remarks, in which they incorporated their answers to their opponent as well as those who critiqued their positions. Nevertheless, such debate-style books overall are tedious since there is never really a clear outcome. None of the actual participants are really persuaded to change their minds. And, the average reader probably doesn't know enough to judge the difference and likely sides with one or the other participants from the beginning. However, I would recommend this format for a debate type book.

[Steven · Rating 2 out of 5]

Great debate, but the essays that accompany it are not of primary interest to me, with the exception of the one about the hallucination hypothesis.

[Steve · Rating 5 out of 5]

Read and digest everything you can by William Lane Craig for practical and inspiring apologetics.

[Nathan · Rating 3 out of 5]

I enjoy a respectful debate about important matters, but I found this interaction to be sadly muddy. The structure of the book records a 2002 oral debate between two scholars each proposing in regard to Jesus a resurrection hypothesis or a vision/hallucination hypothesis, followed by a written response to the debate by four scholars (two supporting each side), and ending with a written response to the responses by the original debaters. As later points are made in support or refutation of earlier points, I found myself lost as to who actually said what when.

I'm unsure who the prime audience of this book would be. The language is scholarly and philosophical, presuming a certain level of knowledge on the issues already. And yet I doubt that those who have such a capacity would find the content on either side particularly enlightening. Oral debates simply don't show up well in print.

Craig's resurrection hypothesis case was clearer and more convincing, though both sides made some good points. The issue, though, is in the underlying differences between the two sides. Hoover's response note is true: "[In such debates], there seems to be no rational way to choose between the rival premises of such moral arguments.... Consequently debate tends to be reduced to the assertion and counterassertion of rival premises, and its tone becomes 'slightly shrill.'" It's not that the rival premises here are equally valid. We just never quite get to those basic premises but only to their natural children.

In sum, it's an OK book for helping us to thoughtfully interact with those who oppose us. Not bad, but not quite good either. I imagine reading the debaters' respective books on the subject would be a better way to really explore and weigh the views.

[Jeremiah]

Neither Craig nor Ludeman are intellectual slouches, so this book should be great. Ludemann does not deny that the disciples atleast claimed to have seen the risen Jesus, but he argues that these visions were really hallucinations. This already has problems because hallucinations won't explain why the tomb was empty which was the Jews' first excuse of what happened, not to mention that the Romans who were guarding the tomb could have just paraded the body out before everyone to show that the disciples were wrong; moreover, hallucinations are never a coroporate or repeatable phenomenon, just like dreams. There is also the issue of the ethical integrity of all of the disciples who, if they had hallucinations, were not accurate in their proclamation that Christ had risen from the dead, instead they were lying even if they thought they were telling the truth. That's one mass delusion! One more thing: corporate hallucinations don't produce transformed lives like the disciples were seeing among the early Christian communities, that is the work of the Spirit. But if Jesus didn't raise then the Spirit is also a lie and never came, so even the transformed lives are a hoax and delusion. I'm interested in seeing how Ludemann defends his theory.

[Mark · Rating 3 out of 5]

A transcript of a debate on the Resurrection... followed by essays responding to the debate & the points raised. Obviously, I side with William Lane Craig... but I was impressed that Ludemann was intellectually honest enough to come to the point of admitting that what he believes doesn't count as Christianity.

[Ben Wanamaker · Rating 5 out of 5]

What I most enjoyed in this book were the participants' essay responses post-debate, most especially Dr. Craig's. It is a very powerful argument, carefully weighed, and stimulates the issue to a very high level in regards to comparing the opposite views. The last chapter, and the post-debate responses from 4 scholars, are worth the read. Very enriching.

[Jonathan · Rating 4 out of 5]

Another book that is on mp3 format. Craig vs. Borg is a great listen and read for the believer.